Talk:Principality of Antioch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Middle Eastern military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500) Crusades task force

	Middle Ages Portal Principality of Antioch is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
	Crusades task force
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. (FAQ).Add comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Hmm... wasn't Bohemund already Prince of Taranto? john 00:01 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he was a count in Taranto, and then he declared himself a prince in Antioch just for prestige. Adam Bishop 00:10 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Runciman calls him Prince. "The princes at first held back, but Guiscard's son Bohemond, now prince of Taranto" (History of the Crusades, Vol. 1, p.112) john 00:19 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't have any sources that refer to him as anything other than "Bohemund of Taranto," they never give a title (I unfortunately don't own Runciman or any of the big histories). Googling for him turns up results with Prince, Duke, and Count as a title (not that that really means much). I could swear there was some minor controversy because he called himself a Prince when he actually wasn't... Adam Bishop 00:29 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, I never followed up on this - Runciman has the habit of calling all the major crusade leaders "princes", including Godfrey and Raymond, who were certainly a duke and a count respectively. This comes from the convention of calling their crusade the "princes' crusade," when what is meant is that they were wealthy nobles as opposed to a crowd of poorer knights and soldiers. They weren't literally princes, and neither was Bohemund, as Taranto wasn't a principality. Adam Bishop 01:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, upon further reading, it seems that Taranto really was a principality under the king of Sicily. I guess I don't know very much about southern Italy at this period. In any case, calling all the crusaders "princes" is still hyperbole, and the problem is not whether or not Bohemund was already a prince, but that he claimed Antioch at all. Hopefully this is the last I will have to say about this :) Adam Bishop 02:10, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss his titles (and status) under Talk:Bohemund I of Antioch. I think he was not COUNT of T, but allodial prince there. 62.78.106.188 14:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Map

Please see the Map showng "Antioch under Byzantine Protection". Please edit it and remove Edessa as a county, its under Syrian control by 1158, when Antioch was made a Byzantine vassal.Tourskin 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, KOJ was bigger as Adam pointed out. I can edit the map if you want, just leave a message.